oh yes Ireland, the great bastion of privacy concern trolling.
Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses
61–70 of 152 posts
Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They have no track record of trust. Its worse. They have a consistent track record for asking for trust and then breaking it in most abusive way possible, then issuing a non-apology only after getting caught and then repeating same process all-over again. Oh, I forgot mentioning FB getting rich in the process, so it somehow becomes justified and has zero chance for change.
Aren't all recorded breaches of trust (outside of admittedly predatory data collection schemes endemic to the software industry) the result of unprecedented attacks on social networks as a construct? How would one anticipate such attacks? I think it's fair to say that Facebook grew too quickly to mitigate the issues inherent to social networks at scale. I don't think that makes them abusive or evil, just naive.
Remember the time they asked for your phone number for 2FA and then used it for contact linking?
Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses
#63Can we just look back to all the stories about Google Glass a few years back and repeat them?
At least with Google Glass, you had a display. These don't even have that. It's mostly a music player, really.
Let's call them "fDweebs". ("iDweebs" were those Apple earbuds with white wires.)
Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard for me to articulate how this makes me feel. As someone who values anonymity and, for no particular reason, would prefer not to be photographed and have my movements tracked, I feel like I am being forced from public spaces. Regulated CCTV coverage of certain areas is one thing. This is untracked, unlimited surveillance by a private company whose goals and motives are completely removed from any semblance o…
If it wasn't Facebook, somebody else would or already is doing this. There's no escaping public CCTV in major cities nowadays. It's not nearly as regulated as you think and is also majority run by private companies. If you don't like this, changing the laws to ban public surveillance is the only option.
> changing the laws to ban public surveillance is the only option
i wonder if it would be feasible to require that all surveillence footage from public areas be immediately encrypted so that it could only be decrypted by a certain number of judges (following a court order).
Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses
#65Why are people up in arms about this? Imagine a transhuman future where we all have superhuman memory and have integrated mind machine interfaces, able to perfectly transfer information between ourselves. Would you insist that people's memories be degraded to be close to the average memory quality? Or would you prevent them from transferring the information via things like degrading their perfect drawing skills? (Or maybe just make drawing people's faces from memory without their consent illegal? Presumably while also making it illegal to do things like sharing a high fidelity memory with a friend or spouse)
Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses
#66This is exactly what I thought when I first saw them. The LED can be easily covered, and they look too much like normal sunglasses for the average person to notice. Day after day, my loathing for Facebook grows.
Unfortunately Facebook is far from the only company that regularly invades and has contempt for privacy.
That contemptuous attitude and attempts to profit from privacy invasion is almost omnipresent among companies these days.
On the subject of glasses that can record what you see, wasn't Google the first company to market them? There was a similar backlash against them too back then.
Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses
#67Why are people up in arms about this? Imagine a transhuman future where we all have superhuman memory and have integrated mind machine interfaces, able to perfectly transfer information between ourselves. Would you insist that people's memories be degraded to be close to the average memory quality? Or would you prevent them from transferring the information via things like degrading their perfect drawing skills? (Or…
Cause it's Facebook... Any other company, sign me up... But fuck you Facebook....
Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me, it’s because Facebook. They have no track record of trust. I work for a significant Silicon Valley tech company and have seen up close the types of shenanigans that have been attempted by Facebook — especially with their mobile apps. Don’t trust them.
From my position, the mobile app shenanigans look like little more than intracompany politics. Where Facebook is not getting data, Apple or Google are still happily collecting. Overall, I would guess that there is no track record of trust because expectations remain unclear. Concepts of privacy, data usage, and such didn't exist before Facebook and others. I suppose I am not eager to assume malintent outside what is…
"Concepts of privacy, data usage, and such didn't exist before Facebook and others."
They did exist before Facebook.
But not before "others", which include every company and person who ever existed. Not sure why you added "and others" to that sentence.
Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses
#69Why are people up in arms about this? Imagine a transhuman future where we all have superhuman memory and have integrated mind machine interfaces, able to perfectly transfer information between ourselves. Would you insist that people's memories be degraded to be close to the average memory quality? Or would you prevent them from transferring the information via things like degrading their perfect drawing skills? (Or…
I live in an all-party consent state, and would like to keep it that way. I don't want to be traced through other people's recordings, particularly through something that is easy to always have on.
Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with these is that they're essentially masquerading as normal sunglasses. I don't think most people in public will even notice that these aren't normal Ray Bans. Google Glass wasn't effective in part due to the fact that they were obvious to those around the wearer. That's not the case with these, which is frankly terrifying.
It's hard for me to articulate how this makes me feel. As someone who values anonymity and, for no particular reason, would prefer not to be photographed and have my movements tracked, I feel like I am being forced from public spaces. Regulated CCTV coverage of certain areas is one thing. This is untracked, unlimited surveillance by a private company whose goals and motives are completely removed from any semblance o…
>Regulated CCTV coverage of certain areas is one thing
Why is it one thing? Also, who told you it was regulated?